I believe in God because consciousness can not come from things such as matter, energy comes from matter so energy probably is not the source either. There is too much precision in life and the universe for it all to be a random creation.

You said I did not fully answer your question so here is part 2 of my above reason.If consciousness cannot come from matter or energy then it must come from something else, what? I believe that only a greater consciousness (God) can create other conciousness.

I never asked you why you believe in a deity, but, you keep answering that make-believe question. Is English not your first language? I thought my question was pretty straightforward. Here it is again. Please read carefully.

Your list of responses to the ten questions indicate you believe in a deity that is not all powerful; For example, it cannot forsee the actions of the creatures it created. I would like to know what other things can your god not do. What other things can your deity not do?

..You said I did not fully answer your question so here is part 2 of my above reason.If consciousness cannot come from matter or energy then it must come from something else, what? I believe that only a greater consciousness (God) can create other conciousness.

Do you believe your consciousness and soul reside in your kidneys like Jesus, or do you think it resides in some other body part?

Each of us IS a soul (spirit) which resides throughout the body. Ed

Why is your "consciousness affected by simple chemicals? It's obvious if our thinking is simply the electro-chemical workings of the brain, but if it is god and not our physical brains, then why does LSD change the way you think for a few hours?

Because we are linked to our bodies through our material brains. If we are somewhat linked to our brains then it makes sense that we would be affected. Ed

I believe in God because consciousness can not come from things such as matter, energy comes from matter so energy probably is not the source either. There is too much precision in life and the universe for it all to be a random creation.

You said I did not fully answer your question so here is part 2 of my above reason.If consciousness cannot come from matter or energy then it must come from something else, what? I believe that only a greater consciousness (God) can create other conciousness.

I never asked you why you believe in a deity, but, you keep answering that make-believe question. Is English not your first language? I thought my question was pretty straightforward. Here it is again. Please read carefully.

The question above is: "Why do you believe in god, Ed?" God and diety is one and the same. Ed

Your list of responses to the ten questions indicate you believe in a deity that is not all powerful; For example, it cannot forsee the actions of the creatures it created. I would like to know what other things can your god not do. What other things can your deity not do?

I never said that God was not all pwerful, I merely meant that God is so disgusted that sometimes his answer to a prayer is "no".

If you want examples at what God is disgusted at, just read some of the hateful responses to Christians expressing their opinions. There is little reason here and there is much arguing here. Ed

..Because we are linked to our bodies through our material brains. If we are somewhat linked to our brains then it makes sense that we would be affected. Ed

So does a person loose part of his soul when he becomes an amputee?

Did twins split a soul?

We are a massively multicellular organism. Every thing we are can be broken down to the microscopic cell. Are you telling me that when a skin cell flakes off and dies that the cell's soul went off to heaven before the rest of the body?

I was "saved" at the age of eight and according to our current scientific knowledge almost none of those original cells that made up my body then are alive. Are they now in heaven while my deconverted body of today will go to hell when it dies?

3sigma

I believe in God because consciousness can not come from things such as matter, energy comes from matter so energy probably is not the source either.

[bold mine]

You’ve made this unsupported claim twice now. Please establish the truth or validity of this claim. Please show us that your claim that consciousness cannot come from matter or energy is actually true.

The answer is hidden in many of these responses, which is, If you look at society today, you will see that much of mankind has done the equivalent of saying "F U" to God. For example: stealing, lying, murdering, raping, adultery, torture, child pornography, bullying, corruption, shall I go on?

Ed,Can you think of a time when this did not happen? It happened before Jesus it happened before and after the flood...

I don't think much changes - it is human nature. You think that God created this nature... I think it is because we are territorial creatures and given to war and fighting. This is not a bad thing as Yahweh is the God of War:

Ex:15:3: The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name....1Sa:16:18: Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him.

J'g:21:10: And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.J'g:21:11: And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.J'g:21:12: And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

De:21:10: When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,De:21:11: And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;De:21:12: Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;De:21:13: And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

Nu:31:17: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.Nu:31:18: But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

So, let us have no more mistakes: your god is violent. Your god causes evil,

God is behind all evilDeut. 32:39: See now that I, [even] I, [am] he, and [there is] no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither [is there any] that can deliver out of my hand.

2 Chron. 15:13: That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Exodus 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Jer:18:11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

Lamentations:2:32 But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

I never said that God was not all pwerful, I merely meant that God is so disgusted that sometimes his answer to a prayer is "no".

The responses you provided logically lead to the conclusion that your god is not all powerful. For example,

Quote

3) This is a tough question but I think that the old testament writers could not fully interpret Gods' inspirational meanings. This is one of the reasons why Jesus came here, to clarify what God The Father meant. This is why you do not read such laws within the new testament.

It could not properly communicate with beings it created. Inability to see the future, inability to understand the things it created (maybe memory loss?).

At any rate, having to try something two different ways because of an initial failure is not an attribute of an all-seeing entity.

Quote

6) Mankind is responsible for the present schism between God and us, its a wonder that God answers any prayers.

Lack of forethought. Created beings that would later cause a schism. Unable to see what creating humans the way it created them would lead to.

If you choose, the "he did know and it is part of his plan" route, then you cannot lay blame on humans, can you? So which is it? Your deity is not all-powerful, and not responsible for the cause of a "schism"; or, it is all powerful and responsible for pre-determining the actions of it creation?

Listen, Ed. I tend to give folk the benefit of the doubt and expect that they think things through before they write or say them. Your excuses do not hold any weight unless you believe your deity lacks certain abilities. If it lacks the ability to see the ramafications of it's own actions, creative and otherwise, then it is not all powerful.

I respect your thoughtfulness and have answers to your 10 questions. I am a Christian who tries hard to be one even though I am not perfect and do make mistakes. Here is my attempt to answer your 10 questions, some are correct but some may or may not be. Please bear with me, I tried my imperfect best to answer the questions. Sincerely, Ed

1) I wish God would heal amputees but perhaps the reason he does not is because that would be too obvious a miracle.Obvious miracles could replace faith to the point when there would be no faith. Without faith there is no salvation, this is why you must choose Christianity before you die and see God.

2) Food is provided but much of the time, the country's government steals the food for themselves to eat or sell.

3) This is a tough question but I think that the old testament writers could not fully interpret Gods' inspirational meanings. This is one of the reasons why Jesus came here, to clarify what God The Father meant. This is why you do not read such laws within the new testament.</HTML>

2. I am assuming you feel god provides the food to the starving through agencies, like The Red Cross, UNICEF and other such entities, but you feel it gets stolen. If this is true, why does god go through all the trouble of making and transporting that food for the starving just to let a bad person(s) steal it?

3. I thought the Old Testament was god’s actual words and no interpretation was needed. The stories in the Old Testament are real according to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, the Pope and all their followers. If I am wrong, please clarify. (Also) Why did they need a New Testament? Couldn't they just keep going with the old one? Could you please explain the need for 2 testaments?

..Because we are linked to our bodies through our material brains. If we are somewhat linked to our brains then it makes sense that we would be affected. Ed

So does a person loose part of his soul when he becomes an amputee?

Since a person who loses a body-part does not become less of a person, I would say that such a person does not lose part of his soul ( himself or herself ). Ed

Did twins split a soul?

No, each twin is a complete person. Ed

We are a massively multicellular organism. Every thing we are can be broken down to the microscopic cell. Are you telling me that when a skin cell flakes off and dies that the cell's soul went off to heaven before the rest of the body?

Cells and body-parts are not people and therefor do not have souls, each part of the body is part of a collective organism which acts as one vessel for one soul. Ed

I was "saved" at the age of eight and according to our current scientific knowledge almost none of those original cells that made up my body then are alive. Are they now in heaven while my deconverted body of today will go to hell when it dies?

^Actually,it's not new. I've read articles at "Making of America" at Cornell, and Michigan University, dating back to the 18th Century where Christians attempted to use science tovalidate the Bible. They were few and far between but you can find them there, if you look. (Don't forget to put "Making of America" in google first)

-Nam

Ah, thanks. Then I stand corrected. I guess I should have said I had not HEARD anyone do it until recently.

Logged

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

If you want examples at what God is disgusted at, just read some of the hateful responses to Christians expressing their opinions. There is little reason here and there is much arguing here. Ed

Where has anyone on this forum been hateful to you Ed? You are indeed expressing your opinion, but I do not see anyone throwing accusations or calling you anything because of your beliefs. You are simply being asked to explain WHY you believe things in spite of contradictory evidence. Why for example do humans seek evidence? Why is it part of our nature to look for cause, effect, reason; to use logical deduction to evaluate our world, but then when on the most important question that could ever come to us - we are supposed to ignore that same logic and reason (that you would have use believe is given to us by an almighty god) in favor of blindly believing some book that is in itself full of contradictions, logic flaws, and is flat-out wrong on many issues.

Logged

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

Welcome to the forum Ed. Its good to have new faces, particularly ones to disagree with.

I wont go too into all your points as much has been addressed above, but I will say your "scientific" evidence really irritates me. This seems to be a relatively new claim by theists, that the bible is somehow scientifically advanced for its time of writing (it is not). I guess the biggest issue I have with your claim in general is the claim that a circle and a sphere are somehow equivalent. While I am no geometry genius I am pretty sure circles and spheres are just as different as squares are from cubes... in other words completely freaking different.

YOur science irritates me, how ridiculous! Its not perfect but the medical knowledge cannot be disproved. Here is an experiment for you, read all the responses from Christians then read the responses from Athiests. Tell me, which group expresses anger and arrogance?

What about science do you find irritating and/or ridiculous? Can you give some examples?

Quote

Its not perfect but the medical knowledge cannot be disproved.

What medical knowledge?

Quote

Here is an experiment for you, read all the responses from Christians then read the responses from Athiests. Tell me, which group expresses anger and arrogance?

I don't think either Christians or atheists have a monopoly on arrogance. As to anger, I would actually tend to agree that atheists are very often a lot angrier than Christians, but then, we have a lot more to be angry about.

Greta Christina, for example, has written an essay about a lot of the things she's angry about when it comes to religion. The list is long. My list isn't the same as hers, but there's a fair amount of overlap, and in any event, the underlying principle is the same.

Here is an experiment for you, read all the responses from Christians then read the responses from Athiests. Tell me, which group expresses anger and arrogance?

There you go again with the whole 'anger' thing[1]. Just because someone disagrees with you (by you I mean a theist) and either proves you wrong, or gives you a reply that you can't back up with evidence doesn't equal an angry post.

Here is an experiment for you, read all the responses from Christians then read the responses from Athiests. Tell me, which group expresses anger and arrogance?

The word is "atheists", not "athiests".

As for the question; I'd say it's the christians. Judgemental (even though Jesus said not to be), threats of hell, severe homophobia, implying that they "have a personal relationship with Jesus".

I'm not going to suggest or imply that atheists are saints, or that we don't upset about things, or that not one of can be snobbish. But we don't threaten people with eternal damnation or claim that we have a "personal relationship" with the creator of the universe.

Do note that if you are horribly offended by out apparent "anger", we do have two options that might appeal to you. First of all, we have a section called "The Shelter", where we treat theists with kid gloves. Only some of us can participate, and all atheist participants have been vetted and agree not to go postal in discussions with theists such as yourself.

On the downside, you have to behave as well. Which I'm sure you do.

You'll have to ask one of us mods to let you join, because the same system that locks out our more harried atheists locks out you until you have been given permission to post.

We also have a "Formal Debate" section, where you can, if you find a willing opponent from amongst us bad guys, discuss any given issue one on one. The rest of us get involved by discussing the debate in a separate thread, which you can choose to ignore or whatever.

It would probably be better to define most of us atheists as frustrated rather than angry. None of us are shooting at you yet, and maybe we should save that word for the day that we start doing that.

And any expectation you had that we would be complaint little twerps who rolled over and played dead any time someone mentioned god is your problem. Said expectation was way too high.

Welcome to the forum Ed. Its good to have new faces, particularly ones to disagree with.

I wont go too into all your points as much has been addressed above, but I will say your "scientific" evidence really irritates me. This seems to be a relatively new claim by theists, that the bible is somehow scientifically advanced for its time of writing (it is not). I guess the biggest issue I have with your claim in general is the claim that a circle and a sphere are somehow equivalent. While I am no geometry genius I am pretty sure circles and spheres are just as different as squares are from cubes... in other words completely freaking different.

YOur science irritates me, how ridiculous! Its not perfect but the medical knowledge cannot be disproved. Here is an experiment for you, read all the responses from Christians then read the responses from Athiests. Tell me, which group expresses anger and arrogance?

I refer to Pianodwarf for much of what I would say, but have a couple points to add. First I would say that there is a DISTINCT AND IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE between anger and hate. Anger I will agree with, as other have said there is a fair amount of historical bullcrap caused in the name of faith that there is to be angry about. Hate is another thing altogether. I may be angry at the illogical conclusions that your faith causes you to make, however I do not hate you for that.

And I would sincerely like you to expound on your science comments. Because things in the bible that you have alluded to are NOT in anyway remarkable, and are in DIRECT OPPOSITION ON MANY MANY CASES WITH ESTABLISHED TRUTH/FACT of scientific knowledge.

As stated by others is it more arrogant to tell someone that they will spend eternity being tortured because they do not believe a book written thousands of years ago by semi-literate goat herders, or to simply discount that book on lack of evidence? Who's position is backed by fact and logical reasoning, and who's position is backed by an egotistical desire to believe that they will live forever in an amusement park filled with awesomeness and all the people that they have ever loved?

Logged

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

There's a problem with relying on the concept of a "higher being" who 'created' the order we see in the universe. Namely, something then had to create the creator, since the creator is necessarily organized, and it's logically inconsistent to arbitrarily exempt it from the need to have been created.

I suppose you could say that the creator brought itself into being at the same time as creating everything else, but then you're creating a paradox, since the creator couldn't have created himself until he already existed. In short, there is no reason for a universal creator to exist, and persisting in claiming that one one must exist simply complicates things unnecessarily.

That doesn't mean there couldn't have been higher beings who did things in the universe, but they would have been products of the universe, not creators of it.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Your science irritates me, how ridiculous! Its not perfect but the medical knowledge cannot be disproved. Here is an experiment for you, read all the responses from Christians then read the responses from Athiests. Tell me, which group expresses anger and arrogance?

“Science knows it doesn’t know everything, otherwise, it would stop. Just because science doesn’t know everything, it doesn’t mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale most appeals to you.” Dara O'Briain.

“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”? Penn Jillette, God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales

Any similarity between anger and arrogance is because Christians deny what is before them. There is a saying, "There are none as blind as those who will not see."

Christian arguments praise ignorance, deny the obvious, deny what is known. It is not smart to revel in your own lack of knowledge.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Here is an experiment for you, read all the responses from Christians then read the responses from Athiests. Tell me, which group expresses anger and arrogance?

Your impression that we are arrogant is your emotional response to the fact that the people here generally have better logical arguments than you do. It preserves your belief that you're actually doing well in the discussion and deflects away the knowledge that you are losing the logical side by a large margin. You probably find that arrogant too, but it's the truth. Try not to focus on your emotional response and just pay attention to the content of the posts.

With regard to which side is generally more angry, please see the following link...

8,000 death threats against atheists, Ed. 8,000. Just because some of us don't like the idea of a crucifix being erected at the WTC. How many death threats do you hear about from atheists? How many people have threatened to kill you? I challenge you to show me a single death threat from an atheist to a Christian in any form, anywhere. You probably find that arrogant too, right? Move past that and analyze it for what it is.

And like everyone else is pointing out to you, we have lots more to be angry about than you do. Christianity is evil. If you want evidence to justify that statement, just open your eyes a bit wider and look around. It's all over the place.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Ok Ed, I don't feel I displayed any disrespect or anger in my post which challenged the first three of your ten questions. Maybe answering three was asking too much of you, so if you could just respond to only one question.

Ed said;

Quote

1) I wish God would heal amputees but perhaps the reason he does not is because that would be too obvious a miracle.Obvious miracles could replace faith to the point when there would be no faith. Without faith there is no salvation, this is why you must choose Christianity before you die and see God.

1. You should read a book on the subject. I find all too often, Bible believers have only read sources that they agree with. It's a natural tendency that humans have, to avoid finding out anything that may contradict their position, because they become invested in the position, and literally afraid of the humiliation of wrongness. It's clear that you have done little argumentation on the subject.

After you have been hardened on the topic, you will know that there are exceedingly few fronts that you can argue your position, and not be faced with an instant answer, that you can't really refute. This has been done to death for 2000 years - with little progress, until Darwin and Hubble showed up. You are behaving the same way as a Muslim, Mormon, Scientologist, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, Hindu, Jew, .... They are all dead sure that their flavour God created the universe and is responsible for consciousness and order, but have nothing to back it up, besides Israel becoming a state. Seriously, WOW.

2. The book of Job, if you read it carefully, says that "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place.", which is insane. Job 26:7 says that God hangs the Earth upon nothing, which is a reflection of the old belief that Atlas or Turtles had to hold the Earth up against gravity. Yahweh, is just a bit more mighty, and can use his mind to do it. It's a flaw in understanding orbits. All in all, I'm surprised how few times the Bible sticks its neck out to reveal anything physical. The book of Enoch, written around 300BC, says that the winds, the sun and moon, all come out of "chambers", and that the Earth has mountains of gemstones on its corners. Even if there was truly any information about Earth in the Bible, nobody was able to understand it. The Bible clearly states that the sun is created on Day 4, so live with it.

3. Your idea that healing amputations would be too much of a miracle, does not work, because we only know what is usual by what happens. If amputees healed all the time, we would think nothing of it. Christians are torn between the idea that we have to live by faith, and on the other side, that we have been given proof, by the resurrection. WHICH IS IT?

I take the position that God has proven to us that the NT is full of lies, by putting a resurrection in it. Dead men do not rise, pigs do not become possessed, so therefore the NT is an obvious lie. If God wanted to make the NT believable, he, like Mohammad would have put no miracles in it. Then we would have to live by faith that Jesus was the Messiah, even though he did no miracles. The arguments really go nowhere.

4. You also state that Jesus was sent to clarify the OT. But when Jesus died, another guy called Paul had to come to clarify what Jesus said.... and then another guy called Mohammed came, and then Joseph Smith came. It appears that any dickhead can revise what Jesus or someone else said, as long as some Church endorses it, and people like you are prepared to go along with it.

Matt 5:19 states that Paul will go to hell. That's a serious flaw in the NT.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

First of all, we have a section called "The Shelter", ...You'll have to ask one of us mods to let you join, because the same system that locks out our more harried atheists locks out you until you have been given permission to post.

Let me preface this with giving you the understanding of what a skeptical position is. When someone says something, you don't accept it as truth if it seems fantastic. There are people who lie, there are people who exaggerate. There are people who hallucinate. In such a world you need to adopt a position of skepticism in order to function. After all, you are rightly skeptical of the Greek gods interfering in the Trojan war. It may be written in documents, and those documents may contain some factual information, but I will assume that you don't just take the Iliad's word for it. You would want to see some proof of the claim of Greek God's power before accepting it as fact, and modifying your behavior.

Some regular old citizen of Greece at the time wouldn't have exercised this skepticism at the time, just because everyone else around him went along with the tale. Don't you think you are wiser than him by questioning it?

1) I wish God would heal amputees but perhaps the reason he does not is because that would be too obvious a miracle. Obvious miracles could replace faith to the point when there would be no faith. Without faith there is no salvation, this is why you must choose Christianity before you die and see God.

Why would it be "too obvious?" Really, is there anything in this statement that can separate it from accepting the Greek Gods before you die? Notice there's plenty of "obvious" magic things happening in the bible...angels of death killing the firstborn of Egypt, people rising from the dead, fig trees withering, even Yahweh himself appearing to talk on occasion. But not now, to be obvious now would be to spoil the magic. The tale of big magic in the past, but somehow not now is common throughout the world, and when people can check facts, the magic goes away. In fact, the further back you go, the bigger the magic always is, doesn't that make you suspicious that your religion follows the same pattern of every other mystical tradition?

3) This is a tough question but I think that the old testament writers could not fully interpret Gods' inspirational meanings. This is one of the reasons why Jesus came here, to clarify what God The Father meant. This is why you do not read such laws within the new testament.

If thats the case, why are we gven such completely opposite pronouncements in the New testament? i.e. Pray in private versus not not hide a light under a basket. The parable of the Good Samaritan versus I cam not to change one jot nor title of the law. Why are there more wars since the supposed appearance of Jesus in disagreement over what God's word is than from before this "clarification" I'm sorry but that make no sense.

4) The Bible is scientifically accurate, for example: biblical lists of clean and unclean creatures have a significance often ignored. These lists emphasize a fact not discovered until late in the last century, that animals carry diseases dangerous to man. In fact, the same animals labeled unclean in Scripture still carry parasitic diseases that are still dangerous to human beings today.One of Gods' laws is to circumcise a baby boy when he is exactly 8 days old, doctors now know that a baby's' immune system is very strong on the 8th day. Also, Modern scientific studies have shown that the blood-clotting mechanism in a baby is not fully developed until the eighth day, so it was not wise to do a surgical procedure earlier because of the threat of hemorrhage.The Bible revealed that the earth is round. Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6. The people of the fifteenth century feared sailing because they thought they would fall over the edge of the flat earth. Yet the Bible revealed the truth in 1000 B.C. 2500 years before man discovered it for himself!

I'm sorry but that's downright and laughably wrong. First the Bible just like any other old document can contain some accurate items. However if someone is claiming a document to be perfect and you find hundreds of inaccuracies, such as bats are birds, Pi is 3, or that Nazareth even existed in the 1rst century it is untrustworthy. Furthermore the 8 day thing has been passed around apologists here before and has been shown to be a myth before.

7) Because evidence can replace faith into nonexistence, we need faith.

Why? Faith is just "credulousness" by a warm and fuzzy name. Didn't the ancient Greek citizen have faith in his Gods? We need less faith and more information, or do you prefer to be stupid? I know that sounds insulting but that is what you are proposing when you exalt faith, that a lack of information is a good thing.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Why? Faith is just "credulousness" by a warm and fuzzy name. Didn't the anceint Greek citizen have faith in his Gods? We need less faith and more information, or do you prefer to be stupid? I know that sounds insulting but that is what you are proposing when you exault faith, that a lack of inforation is a good thing.

To elaborate on this point, if faith is threatened by evidence, then it suggests that faith is false. Because only something false can be threatened by evidence. Do we really need something which requires us to disregard evidence simply because it threatens something one believes? I say, no we don't.

To put it another way, if I have a friend who I trust to do something, and he doesn't do it despite promising to do so, then I really don't think I'd be better off still trusting that friend to do things in the future.